Playing the statesman is no easy way out

Monday 31 October 2005 19.03 EST
First published on Monday 31 October 2005 19.03 EST

When the going gets rough, American presidents leave the country. Ronald Reagan used cold war summitry to bury the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton embraced Middle East peacemaking instead of Monica Lewinsky. And the much-berated George Bush is following suit.

After a dinner tomorrow for Charles and Camilla, Mr Bush is off to Latin America and a summit in Argentina. Later this month he will visit Japan, South Korea and China. A trip to Mongolia, where sheep matter more than Lewis Libby, Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, may provide welcome relief from Washington's rancorous ruminations.

But taking refuge in the role of itinerant international statesman at time of domestic strife poses particular problems for Mr Bush, given the hostility much of his foreign policy continues to arouse at home and abroad.

Complaining of US indifference, Latin American countries have moved broadly left during his tenure; and tensions with Bolivarist Venezuela and communist Cuba have sharpened. Last year Mr Bush became the first US president to see his candidate for secretary general of the Organisation of American States fail to be appointed.

Another set of problems awaits Mr Bush in Asia, ranging from export, currency and security-related disputes with China and rising anti-Americanism in South Korea to the supposedly nuclear-armed North Korea.

These tough regional agendas do not take into account other international friction points, notably accelerating US confrontations with Iran and Syria, the ongoing conflict in Iraq, and fraught world trade tariff reduction negotiations in Hong Kong next month. On all these fronts, perceived presidential weakness is certain to be exploited.

Even at home, high-profile international engagement offers little chance of escape for Mr Bush. An independent Public Agenda poll published in Foreign Affairs magazine found that Americans were concerned about Iraq, poor relations with the Muslim world and illegal immigration. The president also received low marks for "working with other countries to protect the global environment" and "helping improve the lives of people in poor countries".

Mr Bush's political weakness at home, if it continues or worsens, could also undermine his ability to sustain current policies, said Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute. Typically, Congress would increasingly encroach on the executive's territory, inter-departmental turf wars would intensify, and a sense of policy drift would set in.

In such circumstances, and with next year's mid-term elections approaching, electoral calculations become more important, Dr Eyal said. "The Senate becomes slower to approve presidential appointments and quicker to interfere in policy-making. If there is no consensus and no clear direction from the White House, the military will become less adventurous. That doesn't mean the US is more likely to withdraw from Iraq. Quite the opposite. You are more likely to get a general paralysis."

But while such constraints might help persuade Mr Bush against launching risky new undertakings in Iran or elsewhere, a lack of initiatives from a distracted president and his staff could also have negative results, Dr Eyal said.

"The Israel-Palestine dialogue is collapsing around our ears right now. There's a need for the Americans to take charge big-time ... A lot of countries will not get the attention they need. Overseas trips and diplomatic summitry are no substitute for serious foreign policy decision-making."